A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models
Tóm tắt
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Rowen D, Azzabi Zouraq I, Chevrou-Severac H, van Hout B. International Regulations and Recommendations for Utility Data for Health Technology Assessment. PharmacoEconomics. doi: 10.1007/s40273-017-0544-y
Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. A general health policy model: update and application. Health Serv Res. 1988;23:203–35.
Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, Zenglong Z, Depauw S, Denton M, Boyle M. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility function: the Health Utility Index Mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40:113–28.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based single index measure for health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.
Richardson J, Sinha K, Iezzi A, Khan MA. Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) 8D. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:2395–404. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0686-8 .
Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Tsuchiya A, Solomon J. Measuring and valuing health for economic evaluation. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 175–256.
Richardson J, McKie J, Bariola E. Multiattribute utility instruments and their use. In: Culyer AJ, editor. Encyclopaedia of health economics, vol. 2. San Diego: Elsevier; 2014. p. 341–57.
NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Health Service, 2008. (Replaced by the 2013 version). Available from www.nice.org.uk . Accessed 11 Sept 2016.
NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Health Service, 2013. Available from www.nice.org.uk . Accessed 11 Sept 2016.
Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, et al. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J Health Econ. 2012;31:306–18.
Bansback N, Hole AR, Mulhern B, et al. Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: addressing design and sampling issues. Soc Sci Med. 2014;114:38–48.
Mulhern B, Bansback N, Brazier J, et al. Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report. Health Technol Assess 2014;18:vii–xxvi, 1–191.
Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R. A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:287–98.
Norman R, Viney R, Brazier J, et al. Valuing SF-6D health states using a discrete choice experiment. Med Decis Making. 2014;34:773–86.
Viney R, Norman R, Brazier J, et al. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states. Health Econ. 2014;23:729–42.
Devlin N, Shah KK, Feng Y et al. Valuing Health-Related Quality of Life: An EQ-5D-5L Value Set for England. Discussion Paper. HEDS Discussion Paper Series (16.02). Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield; 2016. http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/97964/ . Accessed 3 Sept 2016.
Brazier JE, Rice N, Roberts J. Modelling health state valuation data. In: Murray C, Salomon J, Mathers C, Lopez A, Lozano R, editors. Summary measures of population health: concepts, ethics, measurement and applications. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002. p. 529–48.
Kharroubi SA, O’Hagan A, Brazier JE. Estimating utilities from individual health preference data: a nonparametric Bayesian method. Appl Stat. 2005;54:879–95.
Mendez I, Abellán JM, Sánchez FI, Martínez JE. Inverse probability weighted estimation of social tariffs: an illustration using SF-6D value sets. J Health Econ. 2011;30(1280–1292):2011.
Rowen D, Brazier J, Van Hout B. A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(3):328–40.
Available from http://www.euroqol.org/ . Accessed 15 Feb 2017
Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N, editors. EQ-5D value sets: inventory, comparative review and user guide. vol. 2. Springer Science & Business Media: Netherlands; 2007.
Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC, Summerfield QA. Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2004;3(2):103–5.
Espallargues M, Czoski-Murray CJ, Bansback NJ, Carlton J, Lewis GM, Hughes LA, et al. The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(11):4016–23.
Finch AP, Brazier J, Mukuria CW. Validity and responsiveness of preference based measures: a critical overview of reviews. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A744.
Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.
Preamble to the Constitution of WHO as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19 June–22 July 1946—see http://www.who.int/suggestions/faq/en/ . Accessed 11 Sept 2016.
Schipper H, Clinch J, Olweny C. Quality of life studies: definitions and conceptual issues. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996.
Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T, Mulhern B, Hernandez Alava M, Mukuria C, et al. Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(9):1–224.
Moock J, Kohlmann T. Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(3):485–95.
Brazier J, Connell J, O’Cathain A. Do EQ-5D and SF-6D ask the right questions in mental health? A content validation using interviews with patients. Value Health. 2014;17(3):A194.
Hounsome N, Orrell M, Edwards RT. EQ-5D as a quality of life measure in people with dementia and their carers: evidence and key issues. Value Health. 2011;14(2):390–9.
Harper R, Brazier JE, Waterhouse JC, Walters SJ, Jones NM, Howard P. Comparison of outcome measures for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an outpatient setting. Thorax. 1997;52(10):879–87.
Burton M, Walters SJ, Saleh M, Brazier JE. An evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures in lower limb reconstruction surgery. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(10):1731–43.
Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. A comparison of preference-based health status tools in patients with musculoskeletal disease. In: 18th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. 2001. p. 235–245.
Longworth L, Bryan S. An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ. 2003;12(12):1061–7.
Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research: evaluation and actualisation. Diemen: CVZ, 2006. Available from: College voor zorgverzekeringen, http://www.cvz.nl/ . Accessed 6th Sept 2016.
Wisloff T, Hagen G, Hamidi V, Movik E, Klemp M, Olsen JA. Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: a review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):367–75.
http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d/valuation-of-eq-5d/eq-5d-5l-value-sets.html . Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Cella D, Gershon R, Lai JS, et al. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(Suppl 1):133. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9204-6 .
Craig BM, Reeve BB, Brown PM, Cella D, Hays RD, Lipscomb J. A. Simon Pickard, Dennis A. Revicki. US valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29. Value Health. 2014;17(8):846–53.